https://www.irjet.net/archives/V6/i7/IRJET-V6I760.pdf

1. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 350
Study the behavior of the Trapezoidal PSC Box Girder by using
Single and double cell with the help of IRC and AASHTO Codes
Roshani Mehta1, Prof R.S Patil2
1P.G. Student Deogiri Institute of Engineering and management studies-431002, Maharashtra, India.
2AssociateProfessor, the Department of civil Engg. Deogiri Institute of Engineering and Management
Studies, Aurangabad-431002, Maharashtra, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Bridges are an essential part of the
infrastructure of any city. Now a days Bridges are designed
by the different software such as Staad pro, Medas Civil,
Sap2000 etc. The latest Practice for designing the bridge
shows the number of Consultants is preferred box girder
bridges instead of regular bridges, where prestress box
girder is most suitable option because of its economy,
stability, structural efficiency and serviceability. This paper
presents an investigation on behaviour of curved PSC box
girder bridge by the use of IRC and AASHTO code. This
analysis is carried out by using CSI-bridge software. The
analysis part explains the different behaviour of the PSC
curved box girder by using single and double cell and
response is recorded, plotted in table for all two girders and
the results are discussed in graphs with code comparison.
Key Words: Horizontally Curved Psc Box Girders, Aashto
Code, Irc: 6-2014 Code, Csi Bridge Software.
1.INTRODUCTION
The Importance of Bridges as Vital Elements of
Transportation Lifelines Cannot Be Over
Emphasized. Bridges and Tunnels Are the Costliest
and Strategic Elements of Highways and Railways.
Horizontally Curved Concrete Box Girder Are Widely
Used in Construction of Highway Bridges.
Horizontally Curved Bridges Are the Most Feasible
Options at Complicated Interchanges or River
Crossings Where Geometric Restrictions and
Constraint of Limited Site Space, Make Difficult the
Adoption Of Standard Straight Superstructures.
Usually These Bridges Are of Cellular Cross-Section
So That High Torsional Moment Can Be Well Resisted
Economically. Contrary to Straight Bridges. Finite
Element Method Is Most Suitable for Analysis of Such
Type of Problem, But Looking to The Complexity
Involved In Use Of Finite Element Method, The
Designer Involved In The Process Of Bridge
Designing Need Some Simplified Solution To Solve
The Problem. Prestress Concrete Bridge Is Good
Option to Have Higher Durability with Minimum
Maintenance As Compared To Other Bridges. Box
Girder Is Ideally Suited for Longer Span In Prestress
Bridge. However, Sometimes Due To Highway
Alignment Layout And Site Restrictions, It Becomes
Necessary To Provide Supports For The Curved
Bridges And These Bridges Are Referred To As
Curved Bridges. In Addition To Overcoming These
Geometrical Constrains, Construction Of Curved Box-
Girder Bridges Is Becoming Increasingly Popular For
Economic And Aesthetic Reasons.Most of The
Prestress Concrete Bridges in India Are Designed for
The Loading by Indian Road Congress Which Is
Recently Revised In 2014. It Is Necessary to Check
Reliability of Irc With American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Association (Aashto-
LRFD) Code as It Is Mostly Used and Accepted by
Many Parts Of The World. The Present Study Is
About Comparative Analysis and Design of Various
Box Girders For 45m Span Using Irc:6-2014 And
Aashto- LRFD. Typical Post-Tensioned Prestressed
Concrete Box Girders as Single Cell & Double Cell,
Single Cell Rectangular Are Taken for Study with
Same Span, Depth, Intensity of Loading and
Material Properties in This Paper. Csi Bridge
Software Which Is Based on Finite Element Is Used
for Analysis And All Girders Are Manually Designed.
Loadings Considered in Irc:6-2014 Are as Per Class-A
And Class-Aa Whereas Loadings Considered In

2. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 351
Aashto- LRFD. Analytical Comparison Of Shear
Force, Bending Moment And Torsion Has Been
Done For Box Girders.
2.Preliminary Data Considered for the
Analysis:
Total width = 8.5 m
Total Depth = 2.3 m
Exterior Girder Thickness = 0.305
FIG-01 SINGLE CELL TRAPEZOIDAL BOX
GIRDER SECTION
FIG-02 DOUBLE CELL TRAPEZOIDAL BOX
GIRDER SECTION
3. FOLLOWING ARE LOADING ON BOX
GIRDER BRIDGE
3.1 Dead Load (DL)-Which consist of self-weight of
the member on bridges which is calculated by the
software itself.
3.2 live Load (DL)-Which consist of all the loads
acting over the bridge span in the form of Vehicle
load such as Trucks, Trailer, Trains etc. of the
member on bridges.
These all types of live load consist the following
loadings in the form of IRC and Ashto.
a) Indian Roads Congress Bridge Loading
A. IRC Class AA Loading
B. IRC Class A Loading 1.2
b) AASHTO (American Association of State
Highway Transport Official) Loading.
4. RESULTS: -
FIG: SHOWS THE TOP VIEW OF BOX GIRDER BRIDGE
Table1. Displacement
SR.NO LOAD
CASE
SINGLE CELL
TRAPEZOIDAL
GIRDER
(MM)
DOUBLE CELL
TRAPEZOIDAL
GIRDER
(MM)
1. DEAD 33.6 25.2
2. IRC A 7.7 3.5
3 IRC A-
A
10.5 4.9
4 ASHTO
HL 93
9.8 4.9
As the result indicate that the when we
considered the single cell box girder in that case for the
Dead load the displacement value is 33.78 while
comparing with the Double cell the double cell box
girder having the displacement value is less than that of
single cell. While from the results shown in the tabular
form it is showing that the displacement value for the
all loading cases are less in the double cell while
comparing with the single cell box girder bridges.
Table2. Bending Moments
When we consider the different load
combinations for the measurement of B.M we can say that
after the analysis the bending moments value is more in
case of Double cell box girder bridges while comparing
with the single cell.
SR.NO LOAD CASE SINGLE CELL
TRAPEZOIDAL
GIRDER
(KNM)
DOUBLE CELL
TRAPEZOIDAL
GIRDER
(KNM)

3. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 352
1. DEAD 16060.00 15694.073
2. IRC A 2653.78 2687.95
3. IRC A-A 4447.59 4311.60
4. ASHTO HL-93 3722.79 3551.7
5. 1.25(DL)+1.75LL
(IRC A)
24719.87 28056.33
6. 1.25(DL)+1.75LL
(IRC A-A)
27859.05 29748.7
7. 1.25(DL)+1.75LL
(ASHTO)
26590.65 29670.75
Combinations: For single cell box girder & Single Cell
Trapezoidal box girder
A. SINGLE CELL BOX GIRDER
01: -1.25(DL) +1.75LL (IRC A)
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3126.88 533.7024 -804.167 -18801.9
5 -2276.89 -380.428 194.0469 -1403.42
10 -1436 -357.252 879.0736 10563.27
15 -712.5 -28.423 1303.34 17534.82
20 47.676 826.5538 1514.169 20771.57
25 818.844 1918.634 1479.945 20141.45
30 1654.11 2938.392 1171.718 15052.74
35 2415.52 3460.834 718.4163 7237.517
40 3295.991 3587.313 -84.0617 -6771.22
45 -2370.39 3022.192 -851.842 -17561.9
02: 1.25(DL) +1.75LL (IRC A-A)
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3117.56 894.4 -804.382 -18507.4
5 -2222.11 -114.9 203.8689 174.4763
10 -1335.9 -137.1 938.0829 12836.69
15 -544.2 136.60 1394.21 20262.31
20 272.869 965.90 1619.464 23819.91
25 1096.8 2168.9 1582.64 23104.79
30 1983.3 3256.1 1252.788 17599.12
35 2770.6 3794.5 767.832 9349.617
40 3681.1 3888.9 -83.9252 -5638.77
45 -2264.5 3497.5 -935.581 -15727.1
03: 1.25(DL)+1.75LL (ASHTO
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3125.45 763.8104 -804.239 -18759.5
5 -2261.69 -268.349 209.9683 -967.939
10 -1410.33 -267.87 957.3237 11518.14
15 -649.816 93.7912 1422.818 18976.85
20 140.103 1004.499 1652.44 22502.96
25 946.526 2155.659 1614.102 21806.17
30 1825.459 3224.549 1276.031 16314.37
35 2622.841 3780.234 781.9081 8028.268
40 3572.774 3911.346 -85.2558 -6525.16
45 -2363.72 3340.209 -851.746 -17456.9
B. DOUBLE CELL BOX GIRDER
01: -1.25(DL)+1.75LL (IRC A)
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3363.4 -4227.7 11216 -23150

4. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 353
5 -2345.9 -4059.5 -1554 -4955.5
10 -1345.3 -3143.8 -9537 6829.28
15 -489.27 -1838.7 -14373 12849.7
20 406.723 123.642 -16767. 14411.3
25 505.269 2877.84 -16291. 14423.9
30 1487.13 4948.49 -12692 10855.5
35 2384.40 6434.09 -7447 3653.80
40 3421.86 7744.57 2201 -10468.6
45 -1881.4 7503.24 10751 -110.643
02: 1.25(DL)+1.75LL (IRC A-A)
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3362 -3995 11215 -23107
5 -2330 -3945 -1541 -4525
10 -1319 -3052 -9470 7776
15 -426 -1714 -14271 14283
20 499 302 -16648 16134
25 632 3115 -16176 16080
30 1658 5234 -12603 12109
35 2591 6752 -7394 4438
40 3698 8068 2201 -10225
45 -1875 7822 10749 -8.27
03: 1.25(DL)+1.75LL (ASHTO)
DISTANCE V2 T M2 M3
0 -3125.45 763.84 -804.29 -18759.5
5 -2261.69 -268.349 209.93 -967.939
10 -1410.33 -267.87 957.32 11518
15 -649.816 93.79 1422 18976
20 140.103 1004.4 1652.44 22502
25 946 2155 1614 21806
30 1825 3224 1276 16314
35 2622 3780 781 8028.
40 3572 3911 -85 -6525
45 -23632 3340 -851 -17456
Table No.5 Prestress Calculation Comparison of Single
Cell and Double Cell Trapezoidal Box Girder
Graph:
DISPLACEMENT DETIALS:

5. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 354
The above graph shows the displacement values for the
all four load cases such as Dead load, IRC A , IRC A-A &
Ashto codes.
BENDING MOMENTS DETIALS:
The above graph shows the Bending moments values
for the all four load cases such as Dead load, IRC A, IRC
A-A & Ashto codes.
SHEAR FORCE RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD CASES:
(BLUE – SINGLE CELL, GREEN – DOUBLE CELL)
COMBINATION-(1.25(DL)+1.75LL (IRC A)
(BLUE – SINGLE CELL, RED– DOUBLE CELL)
COMBINATION-1.25(DL) +1.75LL (IRC A-A)
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,RED – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL) +1.75LL (ASHTO)
TORSION RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD CASES:
33.6
25.2
7.7
3.5
10.5
4.9
9.8
4.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SINGLE CELL DOUBLE CELL
DEAD IRC A IRC A-A ASHTO
16060 15694.07
2653.78 2687.95
4447.56 4311.63722.79 3551.7
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
SINGLE CELL DOUBLE CELL
DEAD IRC A IRC A-A ASHTO
3126.88
2276.89
1436
712.5
47.676
818.844
1654.11
2415.52
3295.991
2370.39
3363.49
2345.99
1345.33
489.271 406.723505.269
1487.136
2384.407
3421.868
1881.46
SHEAR FORCES
3117.56
2222.11
1335.98
544.247272.869
1096.861
1983.309
2770.623
3681.121
2264.5
3362.14
2330.94
1319.8
426.745 499.073
632.91
1658.489
2591.723
3698.629
1875.23
SHEAR FORCE
3271.378
2261.688
1478.465
649.816
140.103
946.526
1825.459
2622.841
3572.774
2363.717
2790.51
2330.942
1401.431
426.745
499.073632.91
1658.489
2591.723
3698.629
4452.818
SHEAR FORCE

6. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 355
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,GREEN – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL)+1.75LL (IRC A)
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,RED – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL) +1.75LL (IRC A-A)
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,RED – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL) +1.75LL ASHTO)
MOMENTS RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD CASES:
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,GREEN – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL)+1.75LL (IRC A)
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,RED – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL) +1.75LL (IRC A-A)
BLUE – SINGLE CELL,RED – DOUBLE CELL
COMBINATION-1.25(DL)+1.75LL (ASHTO)
3. CONCLUSIONS
533.7024380.428357.25228.423
826.5538
1918.634
2938.3923460.8343587.3133022.192
4227.74059.52
3143.82
1838.71
123.6424
2877.84
4948.491
6434.093
7744.572
7503.624
TORSION
894.486114.977137.101136.6034 965.9094
2168.945
3256.1073794.5253888.9463497.583
3995.743945.59
3052.71
1714.63 302.3817
3115.022
5234.426
6752.561
8068.1547822.878
TORSION
752.2313268.349267.869593.7912
1004.4991
2155.6587
3224.54923780.23383911.34583340.2092
3887.88084282.5291
3052.7097
1714.6252
302.3817
3115.0222
5234.4256
6752.5606
8068.15438112.9127
TORSION
18801.9
1403.42
10563.27
17534.82
20771.5720141.45
15052.74
7237.5176771.22
17561.9
23150
4955.56
6829.286
12849.72
14411.3114423.99
10855.58
3653.803
10468.6110.643
BENDING MOMENT
18507.4
174.4763
12836.69
20262.31
23819.9123104.79
17599.12
9349.617
5638.77
15727.1
23107.7
4525.08
7776.61
14283.57
16134.3716080.44
12109.31
4438.33310225.78.2739
BENDING MOMENTS
18758.4899
967.9388
11518.1411
18976.852
22502.955921806.1729
16314.3717
8028.26786525.1576
17456.9175
1111.0512
-4525.0811
7776.6098
14283.57
16134.372916080.4414
12109.3131
4438.3328
10225.7235
23099.2833
BENDING MOMENTS

7. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 356
Following are the conclusion we have obtained from
above analysis results are:-
1. In case of single cell curved box Girder bridge the
Displacement, value is getting higher when it will be
compared with the Double cell Curved box girder
bridge.as shown in above tables
2. But in case of Bending moment the value of curved
single cell box Girder bridge is going to be increasing
slightly as compared with the Double cell box girder.
Refer table for bending moments.
3. The results for AASHTO Loading is very less then the
IRC A and IRC A-A loadings.
4. IRC A-A loading gives the significant required results
for which the bridge can be design.
5. The behavior of Double cell curved girder is
Economical and effective against the different loading
for which these bridges are analysis.
6. 24 no of tendons are required to resist the moment
which are acting due to the self weight and the live
load coming from the vehicals.
7. The central portion going to be sag when vehical is
passing from one location to the another location.
And the prestress tendons are give its resistance
to the bridge to get into its original position.
REFERENCES
[1] Gourav Gajrani, Dr. L. M. Gupta, “Behavior and
Analysis of Horizontally Curved Composite Steel
Girder Bridge System”.
[2] Mozhdeh Amani, M.M. Alinia, “The flexural behavior of
horizontally curved steel I-girder bridge systems and
single-girders”.
[3] Mulesh K. Pathak, “Performance of RCC Box type
Superstructure in Curved bridges”.
[4] Shruti G Kulkarni, Pradeep A R, “Guruprasad T N,
“Static Analysis of RC Box Girder Bridge with skew
angles using finite element method”.
[5] Cagri Ozgur, “Behaviour and analysis of a horizonatally
curved and skewed I-girder bridge”.
[6] Mohammed Ameen Zaki, “Live load distribution factors
for horizontally curved concrete box girder bridges”.
[7] Jose J. Oliveira pedro, Antonio J. Reis, “Nonlinear
analysis of composite steel-concrete cable-stayed
bridges”.
[8] S.J.Fatemi, M.S. Mohamed Ali, A.H. Sheikh, “Load
distribution for composite steel-concrete horizontally
curved box Girder Bridge.
[9] Tanmay Gupta, Manoj Kumar, “Flexural response of
skew-curved concrete box-girder bridges”.
[10] Fatmir Menkulasi, Dinesha Kuruppuarachchi,
“Development of alternative concrete bridge super
structure system for short and medium span bridges”.
[11] R.Shamass, K.A. Cashell, “Analysis of dtsinless steel-
concrete composite beam”.
[12] R.L.Pedro, J.Demarche, L.F.F.Miguel, R.H.Lopez, “An
efficient approach for the optimization of simply
supported steel concrete composite I girder bridges.
[13] Rodek Wodzinokski, Khaled, Hamdy M.Afefy, “Free
vibration analysis of horizontally curved composite
concrete-steel I-girder bridge”.
[14] Teng Tong a , Zhao Liu b , Jie Zhang a , Qiang Yu,
“Long-term performance of prestressed concrete bridge
under the intertwined effect of concrete damage,static
creep and traffic-induced cyclic creep”.
[15] Quang-Viet Vu, Duc-Kien Thai, Seung-Eock Kim,
“Effect of intermediate diaphragms on the load – carrying
capacity of steel – concrete composite box girder
bridges”.